Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 12.pdf/143

 120

of 1792, Chap. 36, Sec. 2, enacts that the modes of proceeding in equity suits shall be according to the principles, rules and usages which belong to courts of equity, as distin guished from courts of law. That the readers of this paper may clearly see that we have in equity cases — and nearly everything can be turned into equity — a system of law above the laws of the States, I subjoin a few quotations from decisions of courts of the United States. As early as 1 8 18 the Supreme Court of the United States took the view that, to effectuate the purposes of the Federal Judiciary Act, " the remedies in the courts of the United States are to be, at common law or in equity, not according to the practice of the State courts, but accord ing to the principles of common law and equity, as distinguished and defined in that country from which we derive our knowledge of those principles." And it was reasoned that if the equity jurisdiction of the Federal courts were to be restrained to the same ju risdiction as existing in the States, in some of the States it could not be exercised at all, since at that time some of the States had not adopted the English chancery system.1 Still later, in the year 1819, in a case in equity arising in the United States Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts, the court, speaking through Chief-Justice Mar shall, said : " As the courts of the Union have a chancery jurisdiction in every State, and the Judiciary Act confers the same chancery powers on all, and gives the same rule of decision, its jurisdiction in Massachu setts must be the same as in other States."2 In the same year it was held by the same court that the courts of the United States in equity might enforce the lien of a vender for unpaid purchase money, although there might be no such remedy in the State courts.3 1 Robinson Г'. Campbell. 3 Wheat (U. S.) 211, 222. - United States v. Howland, 4 Wheat. (U. S.) 108,1 15. 8 Brown ». Oilman, 4 Wheat. (U. S.) 255, 290. The jurisdiction of the court was assumed to exist, without dis cussion.

In 1832, Mr. Justice Story, in giving the opinion of the same court, said: "The chancery jurisdiction given by the Constitu tion and laws of the United States is the same in all the States of the Union, and the rule of decision is the same in all. In the exercise of that jurisdiction, the courts of the United States are not governed by the State practice; but the Act of Congress of 1792, chapter 36/ has provided that the modes of proceeding in equity suits shall be according to the principles, rules, and usages which belong to courts of equity, as contradistinguished from courts of law. And the settled doctrine of this court is that the remedies in equity are to be adminis tered, not according to the State practice, but according to the practice of courts of equity in the parent country, as contradistinguished from that of courts of law; subject, of course, to the provisions of the acts of Con gress, and to such alterations and rules, in the exercise of the powers delegated by those acts, as the courts of the United States may, from time to time, prescribe." The effect of an injunction granted by the Circuit Court of the United States was, therefore, to be decided apart from the statutory enactments of the State in which the controversy depended.2 In 1843, Mr. Justice Story, sitting in a case at equity at circuit, said: "It has been long since settled in the courts of the United States that the equity jurisdiction and equity jurisprudence, administered in the courts of the United States, are coinci dent and coextensive with that exercised in England, and are not regulated by the muni cipal jurisprudence of the particular State where the court sits." 3 In another case in equity before the same justice, at circuit in Pennsylvania, it was ob jected that the plaintiffs were not entitled to 1 Referring to § 2 of the statute known as " the Process Act." »Boyle v. Zacharie, 6 Pet. (U. S.) 648, 658. » Fletcher v. Morey, 2 Story (U. S.) 555, 567.